Posted on 03/04/2002 2:50:19 AM PST by Jim Noble
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What WOULD he do?
Would he imprison them?
This is not the time to change the rules. The real issue is that the church knew about many of these cases, paid off the victims, then moved the priests into other positions where they would work with vulnerable children. That's what has to be dealt with...in Massachusetts it is a crime NOT to report abuse of children (sexual or otherwise).
The Catholic Church is going to hav e to live with a leaner priest hood for awhile and see how it plays out. Maybe there would be more qualified and moral men willing to take vows if this mess is cleaned up. Maybe the answer isn't married priests, but elevating some nuns to the priesthood.
Are you sure about that?
Governments seem a whole lot better at killing people and taking their stuff, than they do at "assisting" us.
The libertarian says the only reason is to avoid a violation of rights - but there is no God who defines those rights so they are defined by either the majority or the intellectual elite (read monarchy in time). The liberal says government should create a utopian environment, again without a God who defines what a utopian environment is so it is defined either by the majority or the intellectual elite.
The conservative says the reason for government to exist is to restrain evil and make it possible for good men to do good, with good and evil being defined by the Bible.
You asked about imprisonment of gays and now you ask about concentration camps. I know you believe that prisons are concentration camps so your question is redundant. Now I also know you are framing these questions in order to paint a picture of me as being a Nazi. Your questions are deceitful and designed to cover the truth with a lie. Like your libertarian (Liberal) brethren you are more focused on covering up the truth so that you may continue in your perverted desires. Much to the peril of us all.
Your liberal views are as poison as your causes.
Maybe, but we don't hear too much about heterosexual priests who've molested a string of 20, 40, or 65 adolescent female parishoners.
A wayward romance with an adult woman, perhaps, but nothing like the wholesale degenerate assaults unleashed by homosexual priests.
Can't be done. The rule on married vs. celibate priests is something the Church could change if it chooses (St. Peter was married). But women cannot be ordained to the priesthood. After years of shrieking by advocates of women's ordination, the Church issued a definitive statement that it had no authority to deviate from the example set by Christ Himself, in ordaining only men. The issue is off the table.
This sounds mighty funny coming from a man who ran for office as a registered Libertarian.
Is that what you used the party for when you ran for office as a Libertarian?
Covering up your perverted desires?
My only desire was to have a run for office so I could have my voice heard. This was blinding me to the truth. Once I discovered the truth I decided that it would be better to not associate with that group even if I only got to work for political change from the sidelines. My bigest mistake was listening to them at all.
Is this the same guy who did that bogus study on priests and AIDS for the Kansas City Star a couple of years ago?
Well if it means we have to do without some priests, I'm ok with that! It would only be for a short time, however. There have been many young men who decided NOT to join the priesthood because of some of the things they saw going on at the seminaries they visited. Or young men who were more, let us say, ORTHODOX catholics were run out of seminaries by the feminist nuns who were inexplicably sitting on the boards to decide who would and would not be ordained!
There were many Bishops who started getting squishy on this back in the 70s, so that a good number of priests with questionable character were ordained. The Bishops were beginning to listen to the liberal Catholics who were beginning to get themselves into the Chanceries and boards of Seminaries, and unfortunately have remained in many of the Dioceses like LA, Detroit and Madison, Wis. The Diocese of which Dallas is a part went throught the whole pedophilia thing a few years ago as a direct result of the lax attitudes of those in charge of the Seminaries. And I don't believe for a minute that there are large numbers of homosexual or pedophile priests. I've lived in 5 states and countless Parishes during my almost 49 years and I have YET to meet a priest who later turned out to be EITHER homosexual or a pedophile! Considering how many priests that includes, as a statistical sampling, I think it is pretty significant! It is because of the media hype that people have the notion that it is widespread.
Not requiring celibacy will not change a thing with regard to either homosexuals or pedophiles in the priesthood; neither group has paid attention to the rule so far. And married priests will just mean that the Pastor or Associate will be continually distracted from his pastoral duties by the needs of his wife and family. He won't be able to give his undivided attention to either and it will annoy both.
Is that what you used the party for when you ran for office as a Libertarian?
I have often wondered about the source for the intense hate exhibited by many of theses libertarian hating people here. I have even suspected that they were "scorned brides", but I had absolutely no basis for my suspicions other that gut instinct. I guess my instincts are not as bad as I feared.
See the Peter passage of Matthew to the effect that Jesus asked of his disciples "Who is it that men say I am? Some answered Elijah. Some a prophet. Simon bar Jonah answered: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said to Peter: Flesh and blood have not revealed this to thee but only My Father in Heaven. Simon bar Jonah, though art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys of the Kingdom. What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. What you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I shall be with you all days even unto the end of the world.
That was the truth, is the truth and alwasy will be the truth. Biblical scholars with the Good Book at hand may quibble about my precise phraseology but that is essentially what the Peter passage says.
You are disappointed in the morality of the annulment process as regards the Kennedys. See what can be caused by apparent instances of the sin of scandal? See why Law must resign even if he has never personally had sex cross his mind? People who obsess about the sins of the Church have asked Law in public about Ted Kennedy's remarriage after his divorce from Joan (Technically Lee Radziwill of an earlier time was related to the Kennedys only through Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis) and Joseph Kennedy the Youngest whose Episcopalian wife has reasonably complained along the lines you use as to the annulment of her marriage. First, Joseph Kennedy the Youngest probably would not know the Catholic religion unless it jumped up and bit him. One may have sympathy for his wife (first and only legitimate wife, in all likelihood) but she too has not an in depth understanding of Holy Mother the Church.
Whatever happens AFTER marriage vows are exchanged cannot be the basis of an annulment so long as the marriage is, umm, consummated. If your spouse becomes a heroin addicted prostitute in Boston's Combat Zone three years after validly marrying you, that is not valid grounds for an annulment. If a husband should father three children by his valid wife and, only then develop a compulsive taste for ten year old boys, that is not a valid ground of divorce. Canon Law specifies the grounds of annulment and those grounds must be present before marriage. We all know that plenty of American dioceses operate as to annulments on the basis of "There, there, pooooor baby, how you have suffered! Here is your annulment! No one should be shackled to a spouse who smokes or munches crackers in bed or likes the Red Sox. However, I am talking Roman Catholicism here not AmChurch. Nowadays, it is very easy to understand the late, great Bishop Fulton J. Sheen when he said that, if the Catholic Church were half as bad as its critics claim, he could not very well belong to it himself. Of course, he died a Catholic.
The length of the marriage makes no difference nor the number of children who, if born to an APPARENTLY valid marriage are not rendered bastards (in case anyone cares anymore and nowadays we should call them survivors) by a decree of nullity, contrary to popular opinion in the uninformed quarters of AmChurch.
As to Luther, and I feel sure he would agree, from where he was coming (his errors) was not nearly as important as to where he was going.
While it is true that Leo X was a Medici (a good thing) he was Giovanni de Medici. You are being overly familiar with him by calling him "Gio". Sort of like calling Eugenio (Pius XII) Pacelli "Geney Baby". Leo X lived an apparently soft life. So would have you if you had been born to Lorenzo (de Medici) the Magnificent. He also lived a somewhat sinful life as do we all. No surprise there. He balanced that off by excommunicating Martin Luther and thereby defending the Faith.
Leo X issued a papal bull to do so and Mount Luther exploded accordingly, claiming a rather unlikely scenario in which Leo X had issued not from the womb of Mrs. Lorenzo the Magnificent but rather from the anal regions of Lucifer. If you think that's colorful, pick up a copy of Table Talk, his pal Melancthon's recollections of Luther's rather colorful remarks over the dinner table. Unlike the work of this Chamberlin, called The Bad Popes, +(the recommendation of which merely confirms my accusation of Catholic Bashing) published by Barnes and Noble because they need pay no royalties to the long dead anti-Catholic who wrote it, Table Talk is written by Luther's closest ally who remained loyal to the end.
Now if you really must collect scurrillous lies in print about Catholicism, do not miss such stirring classic fables as The Tales of Maria Monk, Jack Chick's Comix, Roman Catholicism by the Reverend Mr. James Swaggert and any pack of lies by one Lorraine Boettner (who is said to have been a man).
As to Alexander VI, a Borgia, and father to both Cesare Borgia and Lucretia Borgia, he did not speak heresy. Unfortunately, he had Fr. Savanarola, O.P., of Florence, burned at the stake for pointing out the papal shortcomings as to chastity. Father Savanarola's canonization as a saint is anticipated soon. Alexander VI is not thought to be in contention to be so raised to the honors of the altar.
Why is the Roman Catholic Church and its governance any of YOUR business?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.